Oilers win by a touchdown.

[McTedi]

as much as I like seeing the boys win I want them to lose until that whole ridiculous management team as well as that joke of a coach are gone!

So it is true, trolls do come out after midnight. Prehaps you could elaborate on what you would do differently then.

 

[McFlyingV]

Yes, but you did say 19 games over .500 over the next 38 games.
What you said doesn't make sense because in 38 games, a .500 record would be 19 wins.
If you then went "19 games over .500" (like you said) it would mean that you would win all 38 games.

I have no idea why 38 games was even mentioned since there are more than 38 games remaining in the Oilers season.

You literally are making zero sense. 19 games over .500 means that they win 19 more than they lose. 38-0 would be 38 games over .500.

 

[Diamondillium]

You literally are making zero sense. 19 games over .500 means that they win 19 more than they lose. 38-0 would be 38 games over .500.

I don't think you fully grasp the concept of .500

 

[AlanHUK]

You literally are making zero sense. 19 games over .500 means that they win 19 more than they lose. 38-0 would be 38 games over .500.

0.500 is half.

half of 38 is 19.

so to be 19 games over .500 you would have to be at 38 or 1.000

 

[TimeForAnOilChange]

0.500 is half.

half of 38 is 19.

so to be 19 games over .500 you would have to be at 38 or 1.000

wow, ok i'll try this one more time, and please people, remember that I was responding to someone else's post about getting 57 pts in 38 games, I wasn't the one throwing those numbers out there, I was just saying what their record would have to be in order to get 57 pts in the next 38 games!!

Here goes... and try to keep up....

if the Oilers go 24-5-9 in the next 38 games, how many points would they get in those 38 games? In case you cant do basic math, its....tada, 57 pts! Now, how many games OVER .500 is that record? Again, in case you aren't good at math (which it looks like many are on here), its...tada...19 games over .500!! (24 - 5 =19 by my math).

same goes for if they went 25-6-7 in the next 38 games, that's 57 pts AND 19 games over .500 (25-6=19 by my math).

ugh, I don't know why i'm even bothering with this, its simple math, but apparently some people just aren't very good at math on here.

 

[Del Preston]

Feels good.

 

[ohheyhemsky]

You literally are making zero sense. 19 games over .500 means that they win 19 more than they lose. 38-0 would be 38 games over .500.

What?

38-0 = 1.00

19 over .500 = 19x2 = 38.

38-19 = 19 games > .500

Let's use the 2 game rule:
If you win 2 out of 2 games, that would mean you're 2-0. Therefore you're undefeated, which = 1.00. You've won all of your games, or 100% of your games play, so you're at 1.00.
Now, if you win one and lose one, or you're 1-1. It means you're at .500 as you've lost the exact amount of games you won. 50% of the games you've played, you've won which has to mean you've lost the other 50%. You're at .500.

So, if your record is at .500 with 19 losses, that means you've won 50% of your total games. Multiply your amount of losses by 2, as 50 x 2 = 100, which means that 19 x 2 = 38.

So, if you're 19 games over .500, that would equal 38-19.

I really can't spell this out any easier.

 

[Dooman]

wow, ok i'll try this one more time, and please people, remember that I was responding to someone else's post about getting 57 pts in 38 games, I wasn't the one throwing those numbers out there, I was just saying what their record would have to be in order to get 57 pts in the next 38 games!!

Here goes... and try to keep up....

if the Oilers go 24-5-9 in the next 38 games, how many points would they get in those 38 games? In case you cant do basic math, its....tada, 57 pts! Now, how many games OVER .500 is that record? Again, in case you aren't good at math (which it looks like many are on here), its...tada...19 games over .500!! (24 - 5 =19 by my math).

same goes for if they went 25-6-7 in the next 38 games, that's 57 pts AND 19 games over .500 (25-6=19 by my math).

ugh, I don't know why i'm even bothering with this, its simple math, but apparently some people just aren't very good at math on here.

You are doing the math wrong.

 

[Dooman]

What?

38-0 = 1.00

19 over .500 = 19x2 = 38.

38-19 = 19 games > .500

Let's use the 2 game rule:
If you win 2 out of 2 games, that would mean you're 2-0. Therefore you're undefeated, which = 1.00. You've won all of your games, or 100% of your games play, so you're at 1.00.
Now, if you win one and lose one, or you're 1-1. It means you're at .500 as you've lost the exact amount of games you won. 50% of the games you've played, you've won which has to mean you've lost the other 50%. You're at .500.

So, if your record is at .500 with 19 losses, that means you've won 50% of your total games. Multiply your amount of losses by 2, as 50 x 2 = 100, which means that 19 x 2 = 38.

So, if you're 19 games over .500, that would equal 38-19.

I really can't spell this out any easier.

Just one small caveat, this only works because of the numbers he said (19 games over .500 in 38 games)

The loser point however does affect the math. (aka, in ten games you can go 4-4-2 & still be .500)

 

[duul]

I've lost a lot of brain cells reading the past two pages.

 

[McTedi]

I've lost a lot of brain cells reading the past two pages.

So let me get this straight that would make it 2 pages over .500 that made you lose brain cells or half of 2 pages equaling 1 dived by 2, blah, blah, blah...

 

[Dooman]

Since I think some people need clarification on what .500 means (in hockey terms). Since the introduction of the loser point, it doesn't mean you win as many as you lose. OT losses, while still a loss, is a .500 game. Since its all about the points in the end.

In order to get 57 points in 38 games. They would need to be 19 POINTS over .500. The equivalent of 9 wins, 1 OT loss.

 

[oilman9482]

Dooman has the math right. My dad is a math teacher and he explained it to me. 38-0 is 19 games over .500

 

[oilman9482]

For people who follow baseball. If a team got off to a 38-0 start and the Blue Jays were their typical selves and went 19-19. The BJ's would be 19 GAMES behind the division leader, therefore the division leader has a record that is 19 GAMES over .500(the BJ's record).

 

[Captain Catatomic]

the notion of including OT losses in the .500 equation is imo fallacious.
in the old days it was based on ties. so 4-4-2 would be .500. meaning a 50% winning percentage. Now that equation has evolved to 50% of the available points, which is a losers mentality. in reality 4-4-2 is 4 wins and 6 losses, with a .400 record.

 

[Hockey Buddha]

Florida's next. Hopefully, the Oilers can keep the momentum going and roll over the Panthers. The boys need a little swagger back.

 

[M Ace]

T(h)ank You, Oilers!

 

[Dooman]

the notion of including OT losses in the .500 equation is imo fallacious.
in the old days it was based on ties. so 4-4-2 would be .500. meaning a 50% winning percentage. Now that equation has evolved to 50% of the available points, which is a losers mentality. in reality 4-4-2 is 4 wins and 6 losses, with a .400 record.

in the end, its the points which matter. Full stop. In 4-4-2 you have acquired half the available points. How is it any different then 5-5-0?

I don't like it either, but it is what it is.

P.S. In the old system, it's still only .400 winning percentage. You don't win a tie.

 

[Captain Catatomic]

its a *winning* percentage. ties dont exist in the NHL anymore.


In sports, a winning percentage is the fraction of games or matches a team or individual has won. It is defined as wins divided by wins plus losses (i.e. the total number of matches). Ties count as a ½ loss and a ½ win.

 

[Captain Catatomic]

so in reality it doesnt apply to NHL anymore.

 

[Dooman]

its a *winning* percentage. ties dont exist in the NHL anymore.


In sports, a winning percentage is the fraction of games or matches a team or individual has won. It is defined as wins divided by wins plus losses (i.e. the total number of matches). Ties count as a ½ loss and a ½ win.

This is a pointless argument. Both our views are correct. Lol. And we are veering off topic anyways

 

[Jumptheshark]

Just woke up here in Paris and this is a good way to start the day

 

[Captain Catatomic]

 

[oilman9482]

Just woke up here in Paris and this is a good way to start the day

For sure, have a great day! It's nice to have some positives to look forward to and reflect upon.

 

[nando2392]

Just Woke up in Spain and what a way to begin the day! we trashed them